• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Sennheiser HD560s Owner's Thread.

Asterism

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2023
Messages
7
Likes
1
Well try your HD560s using another source (the Macbook you mentioned) as a way to rule out somekind of motherboard sound issues. As to EQ, you didn't put in the High Shelf filter I mentioned. I'd try just putting in the High Shelf Filter I listed, and if that doesn't fix it then try using the High Shelf Filter still, but instead add your previous EQ on top of that High Shelf filter, so your previous EQ from here:
Ah my bad I mixed up 1,000 and 10,000
 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
7,151
Likes
7,075
Location
UK

Soria Moria

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2022
Messages
441
Likes
886
Location
Norway
yea-or-nay-v0-vh63miav7x5c1.png

Heard of the HD 620S? Seems like a closed-back 560S based on looks. Sorry if this is the wrong thread and yes the 620S has not been formally announced yet but it sounds very interesting for sure.
'Excellent adherence to generally accepted target' hopefully means the Harman target!
 
Last edited:

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
7,151
Likes
7,075
Location
UK
View attachment 333846
Heard of the HD 620S? Seems like a closed-back 560S based on looks. Sorry if this is the wrong thread and yes the 620S has not been formally announced yet but it sounds very interesting for sure.
'Excellent adherence to generally accepted target' hopefully means the Harman target!
Interesting, but where did you get this from?

It does indeed seem like a closed back HD560s. Some people say that there is already quite a lot of on head frequency response variation with the open backed HD560s so making it a closed back would seem to worsen this on head variance, which wouldn't be a good move. I'm not sure what they could do about that, maybe they can mitigate that. It's positive to see the acknowledgement to "adherence to generally accepted target curves" which means they haven't just shoved a closed back on an HD560s, but that phrasing of "adherence to generally accepted target curves" doesn't sound very Sennheiser - I have a feeling this could be a hoax, I don't think Sennheiser would openly admit targeting such curves, I think they pride themselves on somewhat of an in-house derived sound albeit for some headphones influenced by Harman Curves perhaps.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,955
Likes
17,238
Heard of the HD 620S? Seems like a closed-back 560S based on looks. Sorry if this is the wrong thread and yes the 620S has not been formally announced yet but it sounds very interesting for sure.
From the impedance (150 Ohm), price and numbering it seems rather a closed 660S, same as 820S is the closed version of 800S.
 

Soria Moria

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2022
Messages
441
Likes
886
Location
Norway
Interesting, but where did you get this from?
A Reddit post who got the image from some Discord: https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/18gv5ct
I think it looks real. It's supposedly from a private survey meaning the original poster leaked it. Doubt anyone went through the effort of faking the look and render of the headphone. But we'll have to see. In the Reddit thread they link to an older Headfi thread where someone who talked to a Sennheiser rep had the rep mention a HD 620S.
 
Last edited:

IAtaman

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 29, 2021
Messages
2,475
Likes
4,377
Heard of the HD 620S? Seems like a closed-back 560S based on looks. Sorry if this is the wrong thread and yes the 620S has not been formally announced yet but it sounds very interesting for sure.
'Excellent adherence to generally accepted target' hopefully means the Harman target!
Nice scoop! From common nomenclature in Senny, more like a closed HD600 probably, but agree, it does look more like a HD560S. Tell them $349 too much, we need $299 and throw in the pentaconn balanced cable :)
 

asrUser

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2022
Messages
354
Likes
219
After listening to IEMs only I come back to my HD560S. Using Oratory EQ they sound quite dark. Maybe I'll recheck the settings, but how do you people like Oratory EQ for HD560S? Closed-back Fostex TH900 with Oratory EQ sound a lot clearer compared to Sennheiser.
 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
7,151
Likes
7,075
Location
UK
After listening to IEMs only I come back to my HD560S. Using Oratory EQ they sound quite dark. Maybe I'll recheck the settings, but how do you people like Oratory EQ for HD560S? Closed-back Fostex TH900 with Oratory EQ sound a lot clearer compared to Sennheiser.
For HD560s Old Version of the headphone (the one with the long cable and 6.5mm plug), then I go a bit darker than Oratory's EQ. Either 1dB more bass shelf and taming the mids a little more, or just a straight linear tilt applied to the Oratory EQ (just a very shallow tilt of about -1.5dB over the whole frequency range of 20-20000Hz, so not -1.5dB per octave, not per octave).

If you've got the New Version of the HD560s (shorter cable and ends in 3.5mm plug), then that's a darker headphone than the Old Version, so you'd want to apply my EQ that converts New Version to Old Version, and then you'd apply Oratory's EQ on top of that. Following is where you can find my EQ that changes New Version to Old Version:
 

asrUser

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2022
Messages
354
Likes
219
If you've got the New Version of the HD560s (shorter cable and ends in 3.5mm plug), then that's a darker headphone than the Old Version, so you'd want to apply my EQ that converts New Version to Old Version, and then you'd apply Oratory's EQ on top of that. Following is where you can find my EQ that changes New Version to Old Version:
Yes I got the new sucking version. :( Thanks to your EQ they improved.
 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
7,151
Likes
7,075
Location
UK
Yes I got the new sucking version. :( Thanks to your EQ they improved.
That's good to know that my New Version to Old Version EQ helped you when combined with the Oratory EQ - it's another loose data point supporting that the New Version is indeed darker than the Old Version.

I wouldn't feel bad about having the New Version though, I think that if you're in a situation where you can't use EQ I think the New Version has a better overall sound & tonality than the Old Version - it's the main reason I bought one of the New Version headphones to add to my Old Versions. I should probably sell a couple of units of my Old Version, but I don't really touch ebay much at all, but they could be backup headphones if Sennheiser stops making the HD560s and if I want to use HD560s for the rest of my life, lol!
 

asrUser

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2022
Messages
354
Likes
219
That's good to know that my New Version to Old Version EQ helped you when combined with the Oratory EQ - it's another loose data point supporting that the New Version is indeed darker than the Old Version.
Though the +2.1 dB starting at 17k seems redundant, but people rarely hear it anyway?
 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
7,151
Likes
7,075
Location
UK
Though the +2.1 dB starting at 17k seems redundant, but people rarely hear it anyway?
Yes, you're correct, the New Version & Old Version headphones measure the same above 14kHz according to my measurements, and in my transformative EQ I decided to effectively ignore that area as people don't really perceive that area very well. So effectively, this enabled me to just use the + 2.1dB High Shelf Filter at 1200Hz, and then not bother correcting for that above 14kHz - because yes as you noticed the New Version to Old Version EQ does actually give +2.1dB more energy above 14kHz - it's a by product of using that 1200Hz High Shelf Filter and realising that it's probably not worth correcting the response above 14kHz - it enables me to just use 3 filters in the EQ rather than a bunch more that would probably be irrelevant from a practical listening point of view. And given that this transformative EQ is designed to be added onto the Oratory EQ then it's important that I use the fewest amount of filters as possible, because no one wants to type in 15+ filters into a headphone EQ, especially if it's not necessary from a practical listening point of view - so currently it's 3 filters for my transformative EQ combined with the 10 filters that Oratory uses, so that's 13 filters in total to enter, probably best to keep it like that rather than trying to correct the area above 14kHz and increase the number even more, albeit I'd probably be able to add just one more High Shelf Filter to sort out the area above 14kHz to make 4 filters for the transformative EQ combined with the 10 Oratory filters, but I don't think it's worth it, I'd rather keep it simple (apart from this explanation!).
 
Last edited:

asrUser

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2022
Messages
354
Likes
219
My bad, I was confused about the measurement descriptions in your REW. So both versions should be similar starting at 14k.
On second thought I wouldn't mind applying one more filter, because the ears could still become more fatigued even if you can't really hear certain sounds? For generating EQs I could use tools such as AutoEQ, if I have the measurements. Is it a bad idea to use high Q on 1 filter? I thought about 14k HS 100Q -2.1 dB but maybe it's not a good approach?
 
Last edited:

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
7,151
Likes
7,075
Location
UK
My bad, I was confused about the measurement descriptions in your REW. So both versions should be similar starting at 14k.
On second thought I wouldn't mind applying one more filter, because the ears could still become more fatigued even if you can't really hear certain sounds? For generating EQs I could use tools such as AutoEQ, if I have the measurements. Is it a bad idea to use high Q on 1 filter? I thought about 14k HS 100Q -2.1 dB but maybe it's not a good approach?
Hi, so this New Version & Old Version compared (which I've shown in prior posts either in this thread or the New Version thread), so you can see how they differ here:
index.php


I've now done an ammended EQ for you of my New Version to Old Version EQ, one that makes sure above 14kHz is not changed:
HD560s New Version to Old Version EQ - sorting out 14kHz plus.jpg

You can see I added one more filter, High Shelf Filter at 14000Hz, Q1, -2.2dB. The Q1 is very important to stress as it is just the right Q value to make sure it's on track, High Shelf Filters are very sensitive to Q values, so be aware that for just that 14000Hz High Shelf Filter it is Q1 and not the usual Q0.71

(You got your suggested High Shelf Filter completely wrong, but it doesn't matter.)

EDIT: I'd just like to stress that I don't think it's really necessary for people to be using that last High Shelf Filter at 14000Hz, but for sake of ultimate accuracy when converting from New Version to Old Version then it makes sense to have it in there.
 
Last edited:

asrUser

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2022
Messages
354
Likes
219
Thanks for your help. The more Q value rises, the more aprupt changes occur? So it's better to just select smooth transitions? As far as I understand you gotta use the formula width=frequency/Q-value
So according to HS 14k Q1 width would be 14k and at 14k the EQ makes changes by -1.1dB, while moving to right direction the EQ will change up to -2.2dB because of HS.
 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
7,151
Likes
7,075
Location
UK
Thanks for your help. The more Q value rises, the more aprupt changes occur? So it's better to just select smooth transitions? As far as I understand you gotta use the formula width=frequency/Q-value
So according to HS 14k Q1 width would be 14k and at 14k the EQ makes changes by -1.1dB, while moving to right direction the EQ will change up to -2.2dB because of HS.
Q value is how abrupt the change is made. Shelf Filters behave quite strangely with Q value though. For Shelf Filters if you select a Q of greater than 0.707 then it will start to have the opposite dB effect before the filter. So a Q1 for a Shelf Filter will actually give a positive dB change before the filter and a negative dB change after the filter in the situation that you have a -dB (minus dB) value selected for the gain. It's hard to explain, but have a play in REW and you will see what I mean. There's no practical reason to get involved with the formulas, instead playing about in REW you will see how Shelf Filters behave when you use Q values greater than 0.707. Q value of 0.707 is the most "predictable" way to use a High Shelf Filter, but for this 14000Hz High Shelf Filter in the EQ it was beneficial to use Q1 - as you can see in the graph the overall result is it tracks the target fine (which is faint blue line in the background that you can't really see in most of the graph because the predicted effect of the EQ line is tracking it so well it's covering it up).

(I've never bothered getting involved in the maths behind EQ filters, but know how to use them on a practical level.)
 
Last edited:

Jimbob54

Baby Modder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
11,254
Likes
15,068
Thanks for your help. The more Q value rises, the more aprupt changes occur? So it's better to just select smooth transitions? As far as I understand you gotta use the formula width=frequency/Q-value
So according to HS 14k Q1 width would be 14k and at 14k the EQ makes changes by -1.1dB, while moving to right direction the EQ will change up to -2.2dB because of HS.
Per here https://howtoeq.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/q-factor-and-bandwidth-in-eq-what-it-all-means/#:~:text=The higher the Q factor,fewer frequencies will be affected).&text=Most software-based EQ programs,this range need be used.&text=As you can see, even,has a very narrow bandwidth.


0.7 = 2 octaves
1 = 1 1/3 octaves
1.4 = 1 octave
2.8 = 1/2 octave
4.3 = 1/3 octave
8.6 = 1/6 octave

Same applies to shelf as peak regarding the q (steepness of the slope)

Example below shows it nicely

The high shelf (6db q 0.7 4khz) is easier to grasp as it affects an octave either side if the chosen freq at a q of 0.7 (so does its job over 2 full octaves) - so starts elevating at one octave below chosen freq of 4khz (2k) and end by one octave above (8khz)- but that means you are adding additional top end all the way up from 2 k

Look at what happens to the low shelf (6 db 100 hz Q 2.8) that has to do its job 25hz either side of the chosen freq- (half octave width per above) gets messy

graph (21).png
 

Jaysz

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2019
Messages
96
Likes
13
I have just ordered a set of 560’s and am looking at the balance lead for them
Are these cables balanced as the standard lead only has one - so is the ground joined in the headphones
Just looking at increasing the output of my dap.
This cable has more pins so are they all used.
 

Another_Moon

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2021
Messages
54
Likes
49
Location
Tver, Russia
I already wrote in the topic about the new version that I joined the club of HD 560S owners, but unfortunately, there are no happy owners yet. I don’t like their original response at all, the sound is through the nose, I don’t understand what’s at high, but with the Oratory equalizer this doesn’t go away, removing filters 5 (1750 Hz +2.2 dB) and 9 (7000 +2.5 dB) it becomes a little better, but that’s all anyway, it doesn’t sound right, and yes, in terms of bass, I’m basically satisfied with LS 105 Hz +3 dB Q 0.7 and PK 135 Hz -1.7 dB Q 0.7. But I still can’t tame frequencies > 800 Hz. I tried to build EQ based on measurements: RAA, well, it turned out not so ringing, but now it’s too dull; Rtings, in principle quite good, but too bright, but perhaps better than Oratory.
In general, good people, share your detailed EQs, at the beginning of the topic there seemed to be a picture with EQ from Coin3, it looked good, but I couldn’t repeat the filter on the picture.
 
Top Bottom